June 15, 2004

Can we know anything?

In several prior posts ("Slippery Theology," "Can we Know the Truth," and "More on Certainty"), several of us have been conversing on the nature of knowledge and truth and one of the buzz phrases we have been debating is the phrase "epistemological uncertainty." "Epistemology" is the study of knowledge, how we come to know, so the phrase "epistemological uncertainty" refers to the idea that we can never be absolutely certain of our knowledge. I have taken the position, against postmodernism, that this notion undermines the very foundations of our faith. Several commentors have written in favor of this idea, to varying degrees. If I may summarize what these folks are saying, they argue (rightly, I believe) that all knowledge and all truth is filtered through our subjective minds. This I agree with. What I disagree with is the idea that we can't be certain of anything - I think the postmodernists give too much weight to the subjective elements. As I have thought about this over the last few days I remembered Van Til's famous circles and thought I would offer them as a means of furthering the discussion. Here are Van Til's circles: Keep reading for my take on how these circles can help further the discussion.

Van Til and his followers have used the circles to teach many things, but I just want to highlight one aspect here. Obviously the big circle represents God and the little circle represents man. The little circle could also be used to represent all of creation. Against pantheism, the circles illustrate that God and man (creation) are separate entities. These circles also illustrate the transcendence of God - that God stands above man and creation. However, the two lines moving downward from God to man illustrate that God interacts with man and all of creation through providence. Though God is above the creation and man, man and this creation have access to God through His works of providence.

However, in relation to this discussion, the most important thing (in my opinion) to note is simply that the "God circle" is infinitely bigger than the "man circle." What this means is that you can't get everything that is in the big circle into the little circle. In the big circle God knows everything perfectly and exhaustively. There is no way you can squeeze perfect and exhaustive knowledge into the little circle. So, in God's mind, everything fits together with logical coherence and again, it is all known exhaustively. God does make Himself known to man, but He does not make Himself known exhaustively. There is a sense in which only bits and pieces from the big circle make it into the little circle.

Furthermore, in the little circle, man doesn't have the capacity to see how all of the bits and pieces fit together. We don't have a large enough frame of reference to understand how everything logically fits together. Also, in the little circle, all of man's knowledge is partial.

Hence, there is a sense in which we can speak of epistemological uncertainty in this regard, but the epistemological uncertainty this illustrates is very different than the epistemological uncertainty of the postmodern worldview.

My apologetics professor in seminary once asked Van Til if he knows that 2 + 2 = 4. Van Til said "yes." He then asked Van Til if God knows that 2 + 2 = 4 and Van Til said "I'm not sure." This was in a discussion over whether or not our knowledge of things is analogous to God's knowledge of things. (This is a great place for Jeremy or some other philosophy wonks to jump in and explain some elements of that debate). Anyway, Van Til has to rue the day he answered in that way, because his critics have used that against him. Some of Van Til's defenders at the seminary clarified what Van Til meant when he answered that way. In saying "I'm not sure" to the question "Does God know 2 + 2 =4" Van Til was saying that God knows "2 + 2 = 4" in a way that man can never know that "2 + 2 = 4." God knows "2 + 2 = 4" perfectly and exhaustively, we know it imperfectly and partially.

The "2 + 2 = 4" equation is simply a silly example of how we know anything compared to how God knows anything. What this, and the circles illustrate is that we can't know anything perfectly or exhaustively. However, we can know things adequately.

In the debate over epistemological certainty/uncertainty it seems to me that the postmodernists are framing the debate in terms of whether we can or cannot know anything with certainty. If we can't know anything with certainty, then I don't see how you can escape agnosticism. Furthermore, I don't see how you can have anything resembling Christian faith, since faith presupposes certainty. I agree with those who distinguish between this kind of certainty and empirical certainty, I would simply argue that the certainty that comes from faith is far more certain than the certainty that comes through empirical analysis.

The Biblical picture is very different - we can know truth and we can know it with certainty. But I think we need to distinguish between adequate and exhaustive knowledge. God has dropped enough bits and pieces of Himself into the little circle for us to know what He wants us to know that we might obey and believe what He wants us to obey and believe. Our certainty is related to "adequate knowledge" (its a phrase I made up on the spot - there's probably a better way of saying it, feel free to suggest some something). Our "adequate certainty" is based on the idea that "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." There's no equivocation or uncertainty there.

However, there is a legitimate way in which we can speak of uncertainty. Our uncertainty is related to "exhaustive knowledge." This is based on the idea that, at present "we see through a glass darkly." There is no way we can attain exhaustive certainty this side of the resurrection.

In that respect, many of the postmodernists I read and listen to are reacting to the idea of "exhaustive certainty." Many of us talk about things as if we had "exhaustive certainty," as if we had totalized all there is to know about a given topic. So, this is a fair criticism. Many of us (I'll put myself in this category) talk and act as if, when we speak about a matter, we have said the last word, we have said all there is to say. This can breed a sense of pride and arrogance which is very offensive and for which we need to repent.

I would simply contend that what the postmodernists propose as a cure is worse than the disease. According to I Corinthians 2:16, the spiritual man does have the mind of Christ. Certainly, the Romans 7 battle causes us to "lose our minds" at times. But the existence of an aberration doesn't mean there is no truth there to begin with. Christians can discern truth.

Also, I know that the idea of "worldview thinking" is anathema to dyed in the wool postmodernists, but Francis Schaeffer had some good thoughts on this. One test of a worldview is "is it livable?" Can you live according to the worldview you propose? I suggest that postmodern epistemological uncertainty forces you to live in a world where you can never be sure if 2 + 2 = 4. Again, this may sound silly, but once you admit that you can know 2 + 2 = 4 with certainty, then you have to admit that there are other things you can know with certainty. I think even the postmodernist elementary school teacher will mark a child wrong if they put down "2 + 2 = 5" on their answer sheet. Even the postmodernist will argue with the waiter if he gets back $5 in change, when he should have gotten back $10. The postmodern idea of "epistemological uncertainty" is an idea that just won't work in real life. And, it also won't work in the Christian faith.

As for me, I am pretty sure that 2 + 2 = 4. When I am resurrected I believe I may learn things about that equation that I couldn't have imagined here on earth, but for now my knowledge is adequate. Similarly, I know that the Bible teaches truth. When I am resurrected I will understand truths that I couldn't have imagined here on earth, but for now the Bible gives me all the knowledge I need to know, believe and obey all that God wants me to know, believe and obey.

17 Comments

Oh, just when I thought I had gotten past this discussion, you throw out another bright, shiny hook! :-)

I think the primary problem I'm having here is definitional: what do you mean by "know"? Yes, we can "know" lots of things, if by "know" we mean something like "having reasonable grounds to believe that our perception corresponds to reality." I "know" I'm sitting at my desk typing this post. All of my physical senses and memory tell me so, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

But, I can't be absolutely certain that I'm not being deceived. What if some very powerful being has hooked me up to a computer that is generating an impenetrable illusion of my current reality, ala The Matrix? What if some god-like being is playing tricks on me? What if my current perception is merely a vivid dream? I can't disprove these possibilities.

I can, however, say that I have no reason to believe I'm being deceived, no reason to doubt the veracity of my senses, and no reason based on the data available to me to contradict my belief that I'm really sitting in my chair typing a blog comment. So, my belief that I'm really sitting in my chair typing is a reasonable one, and I call this reasonable belief "knowing" or "certainty." Yet, it's not "absolute" knowledge or "absolute" certainty, since if I'm honest I must admit the possibility that my perceptions don't correspond to reality. This is what I view to be "epistemological uncertainty" -- not just that we don't know as much as God (as in the Van Til circles), but also that we don't know anything absolutely as God does. Only God, being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, can know for sure that all of His perceptions fully correspond to reality.

One other comment -- you state that "faith presupposes certainty." If I understand what you're saying, I just can't agree with that. Faith presupposes UNcertainty. If we have certainty, we don't need faith. Following our previous discussion of Hebrews 13, faith provides the "substance" (hupostasis) of our "hope" -- it's what puts muscle on the bare bones of hope -- but it isn't the same as the certainty of "sight" that will be ours when we see Christ face to face.

Well stated. I appreciate your reflections on epistemology. The postmodern notion of “epistemological uncertainty”, it seems to me, is self refuting. It asserts that one is certain that one cannot be certain of anything. It leads, as you said, into agnosticism. This does not square with Christianity in any way, shape or form. Just like truth is bedrock, knowledge is bedrock. The verb *know* shows up repeatedly in scripture. Look at the story of the Exodus. “Thus says the LORD, “By this you shall *know* that I am the LORD”. This expression is repeated 12 times. Christ says in Mark 2:10, “so that you may *know* that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and then goes on to heal the paralytic. Peter in his sermon at Pentecost states “therefore let all the house of Israel *know* for *certain* that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”

The postmodern, watered-down view of knowledge puts Christianity in the same class with pure belief traditions such as Santa Claus, UFOs, Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster. It is deadly. Christianity, with a truncated, postmodern notion of knowledge, is watered down to the point where it is nothing more than one of many coping strategies out there to help you get by in life. Faith becomes a blind leap into the dark, instead of a confident step of trust into the light.

I strongly agree that as ambassadors of Christ, we need to proceed with humility and words seasoned with grace. Postmodernism, in my opinion, is a reaction to the tacit arrogance of modernism. It is the cure, however, that killed the patient. We cannot abandon presuppositions that there is transcendent truth and that we can know it. Scripture clearly presupposes it. By the same token, let’s repent of any arrogance in our manner and speak the truth in love.

It amazes me when I read someone asking how we know we aren't all plugged into The Matrix, and they're serious. Wow.

Anyway, great article, David. While I'll certainly agree that much damage has been done in the name of Christ by people who really think they can know it "all" based on the little information we have, I too have found much of the post-modern cure to be worse than that particular poision, and you penetrate the issue quite well.

Epistemological certainty is unnecessary, because the opposite of uncertainty is not certainty, but rather faith.

This, I believe is a very important distinction, because certainty of any kind to is me the equivalent of epistemological collection-ism, rather than an incarnational reality, which is faith.

I think the very idea of certainty far too linear and two-dimensional, but more importantly, unnecessary to our meaningful participation with it. Uncertainty only leads to agnosticism to the linear thinker.

Epistemological certainty is unnecessary, because the opposite of uncertainty is not certainty, but rather faith.

This, I believe is a very important distinction, because certainty of any kind to is me the equivalent of epistemological collection-ism, rather than an incarnational reality, which is faith.

I think the very idea of certainty far too linear and two-dimensional, but more importantly, unnecessary to our meaningful participation with it. Uncertainty only leads to agnosticism to the linear thinker.

Philip: Wow is right -- you obviously didn't read my whole post. Didn't I conclude that we can reasonably believe, and therefore "know" as far as we are capable of "knowing," that our perceptions generally comport with reality and that we thus aren't plugged into a Matrix or anything along those lines? Obviously, the Matrix reference is just a pop-culture allusion to the age-old question of epistemology: how can we "know" anything. My point is simply that as human beings, we can only know through our perceptions; that we can't as human beings be absolutely certain that our perceptions are fully accurate; and that therefore we can't fully "know." In contrast, God, the only omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, is the only being who can fully "know."

Jeff: I agree with you, except that I think your position begs the very question we're hashing out here: what does it mean to "know"? And, your proof-texting leaves out a crucial passage, I Cor. 13:12: "For now we see through a glass darkly; but then, face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know as also I am known." (KJV) To me, this clearly states the limited nature of my human knowledge in this life.

I'm a little concerned about the comments saying that "faith presupposes uncertainty" and that the "opposite of uncertainty is faith".

While granting D.Opderbeck's observation that 100% certainty is probabally unattainable, I would still say that a "reasonable certainty" would be the basis for faith. I say that because our faith is in a real God who can be known. Faith in something that cannot be known is more like wishing.

If we do not know that God is good, that He is just and can be trusted, that He only has our best interest in mind, then how can we place our faith in Him? We trust in what is knowable during the situations in our life where everything is uncertain.

What I mean by "the opposite of uncertainty is faith" is that faith is an phenomenological incarnation. Certainty is not. Certainty, whether "reasonable" or not, is just a collection (large or small) of believed factoids. We can be just as easily certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, as we could be that it won't. My argument is that it is irrelevant. Ultimately, we must believe that it will or won't based upon our observations. However, the sun will rise or not rise completely independent of our level of certainty. That is because our faculties for defining the limits of our certainty are far too coarse and subjective to have any bearing on what is real. But, it does have a bearing on what our perception of reality is. And this is the point the po-mos are trying to make. What they don't see is that certainty is not necessary for a) truth to exist and b) for us to interact with it. The more we strive for certainty, the more we strive to narrow the gap between certainty and uncertainty to an infinitesimal. There is still always a gap. That gap MUST be crossed by faith.

Faith does not negate certainty, it transcends it. It is of a different quality altogether. Imagine yourself to be looking at a line that stretches to infinity in either direction. There is only so far that you can see on an X/Y axis as it receeds to infinity. This vista represents the quest for certainty. Now, propel yourself along the Z axis and look again at the same line. This is faith. As an observer on the Z axis passes through the X/Y axis of certainty/uncertainty, phenomenological incarnation occurs. You now see the line from a different perspective altogether, which does not negate the view to infinity along the X/Y axis, just illuminates it from a different angle. When viewed from the Z axis, bumps, ridges, or faults along the certainty X/Y axis may reveal deviations in one's certainty that were not visible from the X/Y axis. Or it may reveal that the X/Y axis is slightly curved, which is not something one could have noticed otherwise.

To stay on the axis of certainty/uncertainty is to miss the "view from above" so to speak. Incarnation is the key. It is the key to the entirety of Christianity. Jesus was incarnate. Faith, is also incarnate. And to me, faith, not certainty, is the bridge between the Self and Truth.

I'm sure I sound like a loon. I'm used to it, so no worries. Gotta go to bed though. Cheers!

On the 2+2 thing, William Alston has done some excellent work arguing that we can refer to God literally. Just as we can describe someone's thoughts, a train schedule, a room, and someon'es lifestyle all as orderly, with the word meaning the same thing but manifesting itself in such very different ways, so to is it literally true to say that God and I both know that 2+2=4. This knowledge is manifested in God in very different and more complete ways, but it's knowledge of the same proposition.

One problem in this discussion is that all the commenters seem to be talking about subjective certainty, and I'm fairly sure Jollyblogger was talking about objective certainty. Faith is certain knowledge in that it's given by God and can't be wrong. Meanwhile, we may be uncertain about the faith that has an abosolute and certain basis. That's subjective certain. I may entertain doubts now and then, but the faith bestowed on me by God is certain amidst those doubts. So you're talking past each other.

On Hebrews 11, see the comments thread on Jollyblogger's last post on the topic. In a nutshell, it's probably inaccurate to translate 'hupostasis' as "evidence". The word can mean that, but the grammar suggests "substance". Faith is the substance of things hoped for. It's not as if faith is evidence. How can faith be evidence, unless the fact that you have faith is supposed to give you reason to think something further? Faith is the substance, the bedrock certainty that one might think knowledge given by God should be. The things we can't see in any subjectively certain way are certain, and the fact that it's God who has given us this knowledge grounds our knowledge that they are real, even if our subjective certainty allows periodic doubt. The possibility of doubt doesn't undermine the knowledge because it comes from the most certain source possible.

The looking glass darkly is excellent in light of the discussion. Thinking that has been tainted with some post-modernist paint tends to focus on the personal grasping of truth as a definition of truth. I keep thinking of poor eighty something year old Sarah and Abraham there leaning back with certainty on the intangible words that God had spoken and wondering how those words would materialize. They knew those words were true but they weren't fully sure how those words would become true. There went Sarah helping God along, thinking that she could help materialize those truths and God reassures the couple that His words are true. Can you imagine...eighty something years old and probably trying to procreate every night in complete confidence that God wasn't going to fullfill His words in their way, but His way?

About 4380 days or so later they're having a birthday party for that materialization of God's spoken and seemingly intangible truth. The truth was always there and He had no intent to change it. The truth was always there and it was Abraham and Sarah's place to rely on it with certainty--even though they tried it their way. The truth was always there to the point that Abraham figured God would do some miracle to raise his boy's corpse after sacrificing him.

This man's certainty and reliance on God's intangible spoken truth had grown over the years. Some may say Old Abraham had gone mad thinking that God could raise the dead or perform some other wonder--but there you have it, this man knew something about God and His truth that many of us struggle with today.

Oh surely, we can know truth and we can rely on that truth. It is outside of our foggy vision but thank God we see it even dimly...and that we can bank on with assurance.

“I think the primary problem I'm having here is definitional: what do you mean by "know"? Yes, we can "know" lots of things, if by "know" we mean something like "having reasonable grounds to believe that our perception corresponds to reality."

My response:

JP Moreland gave some excellent lectures on how we know things in a past masters series sponsored by Stand To Reason. Moreland uses Plato’s definition of knowledge as given in Theatetus. Knowledge is true belief with logos. That is, true belief with justification/reasons/rationale.

Let me unpack that. To count as knowledge, it must be true. That part is easy. Also, you must believe it, for it makes no sense to disbelieve something you think is true. So far, so good. Finally, it must have adequate reasons before it can count as knowledge. Without reasons for believing it, you can’t claim to know it. You may think it is true. You may even believe it is true. But you can’t know it is true. All you are left with is a guess that it is true. To become knowledge, you have to have grounds for accepting the truth claim.

This definition of knowledge is not perfect, but is a good definition and has been with us for several millennia. Here is the kicker. Justification does not mean 100 percent certainty. It means good reasons. It means adequate evidence. It means logos.

Now there happen to be necessary truths out there that we can know with 100 percent certainty. We can't not know them. The law of non-contradiction is an example. It cannot be false, by definition. We can know that with 100 percent absolute certainty. Most things we know, however, don't have that true-by-definition quality. We know them because they are most likely true. There are adequate reasons for accepting them as true. Therefore, we can claim to know them.

The prepositional truth claims of Christ are things we can know. There is good justification for accepting them. This is one of the reasons why the resurrection is so critical. The resurrection publcily validated Christ and His claims to deity and to be the only way to the Father. That is why Christianity is a knowledge tradition rather than a belief tradition; despite what the modernists and postmodernists assert to the contrary.

So David O. I agree with you. For many things in life, we won’t have a 100 percent certainty of being right. And that is okay. It is not required in order to know something. We can function perfectly well in this world without 100 percent certainty on everything. I think you would agree with that. Will we have a more advanced capacity to acquire knowledge when we are face to face with God? Absolutely. No question. But we still know things this side of glory.

Regarding faith, I side with Sozo’s post. Faith is not wishful thinking. Faith is not a bridge to connect what we know with what we are hoping for. The historic definition of faith is knowledge, assent and trust. Faith is a confident trust, based on logos. Faith is not a blind leap into the darkness, it is a reasoned step into the light.

I'd like to offer this for consideration: An article written by Dr. Ronald Goetz, Century editor, and holds the Niebuhr chair at Elmhurst College.

"The apostle Paul was bold enough to claim that if we are in the spirit of God, “we have the mind of Christ” (I Cor. 2:16). If this is true, then any supposed necessity of separating ourselves in our subjectivity from the objective reality of Jesus Christ is fundamentally dislocated. So-called “objectivity” -- i.e., detachment from the object of concern -- becomes irrelevant to the highest ideal of Christian theology, scholarship or art. Quite apart from the reality of our philosophic situation, wherein modern skepticism has called into question the very possibility of objective “truth,” there is the overriding theological consideration: objective detachment from the object of faith, which is Jesus Christ, is not one of the gifts of the spirit. It is only out of our subjectivity that we can discover who the real Jesus is, for his mind is actually present in the world. But it is present only in his seekers and followers, as a gift of the Spirit." (from Finding the Face of Jesus. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1380)

I think it's appropriate that he uses the quest for the face of Jesus in art as a reflection of our quest for objective truth or certainty. Art, like faith, is incarnation.

I think we know something in a limited sense, because as you mentioned the epistemological uncertainty. But I think some people is not believe in this "term". Personally, I believe Descardes theory. We cannot know we are dreamming or not. Therefore, I think we know something in a limited sense.

We know "good" when we see it, and we know "evil" when we see it. Surely our minds, dreaming or otherwise, afford us the ability to "know" this. Is faith the great "band-aid" across an otherwise absurd or uncertain reality ? Or is faith the only true certainty?
Or as the inspirational first posting poses, are truth and certainty "qualitatively" different concepts. Is it better to have a little truth or or to have adequate certainty?

Perhaps the very fact that I have posed nothing but questions and can offer no absolute certainty/ontological truth, exemplifies the human condition. Perhaps the only certainty in this life is that we cannot know for certain, and that truth, like the white rabbit in Wonderland, beckons us on down the rabbit-hole.